PROPERTY  IN  THE  TERRITORIES. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  BEN J.  F.  WADE, 

OF  OHIO. 


Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  March  7,  1800. 

«> 


* 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

BUELL  &  BLANCHARD,  PRINTERS. 

I860.  • 


8moffi#jf*fiSUt  9i.f  YTsasoai 


H  0  a  51  ‘1 8 


,0X1 I<>  r»i  o 


•  > 


* 


<  f  "  ttlt  ai  fc&WtleCt 

£  ' 


. 


/ 


.o  .f?  fKcmwmrtAW 


8  A  4  Jiff 

* 

m 


r 


Speech  of  Mr.  Wade. 


ItM! irr^i  a/.--*3?] 

he  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of 
[  following  resolutions,  submitted  by  Mr. 

5  iwn  on  the  18th  of  January : 

Resolved ,  That  the  Territories  are  the 
mmon  property  of  all  the  States,  and  that 
is  the  privilege  of  the  citizens  of  all  the 
ites  to  go  into  the  Territories  with  every 
id  or  description  of  property  recognised  by 
}  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
Id  under  the  laws  of  any  of  the  States  ;  and 
it  it  is  the  constitutional  duty  of  the  law- 
iking  power,  wherever  lodged,  or  by  whom- 
;ver  exercised,  whether  by  the  Congress  or 
»  Territorial  Legislature,  to  enact  such  laws 
i  may  be  found  necessary  for  the  adequate 
i  1  sufficient  protection  of  such  property. 

Resolved,  Ihat  the  Committee  on  Terri to- 
]  s  be  instructed  to  insert,  in  any  bill  they 
]  >y  report  for  the  organization  of  new  Ter- 
:  Dries,  a  clause  declaring  it  to  be  the  duty 

<  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  enact  ade- 
(  ate  and  sufficient  laws  for  the  protection  of 
i  kinds  of  property,  as  above  described,  with- 
i  the  limits  of  the  Territory  ;  and  that,  upon 
i  failure  or  refusal  to  do  so,  it  is  the  admitted 
‘  ly  of  Congress  to  interpose  and  pass  such 

PS.” 

he  pending  question  was  on  the  amend- 
n  t  offered  by  Mr.  Wilkinson,  to  strike  out 
1  after  the  word  “resolved,”  where  it  first 
k  trs,  and  insert: 

That  the  Territories  are  the  common  prop- 
i  y  of  the  people  of  the  United  States;  that 

<  ngress  has  full  power  and  authority  to  pass 
i  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  the  Govern- 
i  nt  of  such  Territories  ;  and  that,  in  the 
(  ircise  of  such  power,  it  is  the  duty  of  Con- 
{  ss  so  to  legislate  in  relation  to  slavery 
t  rein  that  the  interests  of  free  labor  may  be 
i  muraged  and  protected  in  such  Territories. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Terri  to- 
r  ?  be  instructed  to  insert,  in  any  bill  they 
i  y  report  for  the  organization  of  new  Terri- 
t  ies,  a  clause  declaring  that  there  shall  be 


1  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in 
1  such  Territories,  except  in  punishment  for 
1  crime  whereof  the  party  has  been  duly  con- 
1  victed.” 

Mr.  WADE.  Mr.  President,  these  resolutions 
bring  up  at  once  before  the  Senate  two  distinct 
and  opposite  systems  of  labor  and  civilization. 
The  resolutions  which  are  proposed  by  the 
Democratic  portion  of  the  Senate  declare  in 
favor  of  that  one  of  those  two  systems  which, 
in  my  judgment,  is  subversive  of  the  meliora¬ 
tion  and  progress  of  human  society  on  this  con¬ 
tinent.  The  public  mind,  North,  South,  East, 
and  West,  is  intensely  engaged  in  making  its 
choice  between  that  system  and  the  scheme  of 
civilization  which  is  asserted  by  the  resolutions 
submitted  by  the  Republican  side  of  the  Cham¬ 
ber.  I  cannot,  therefore,  exaggerate  the  import¬ 
ance  of  this  debate.  It  is  a  very  extraordinary 
thing,  Mr.  President,  that  the  loudest  complaints 
of  mal-administration  of  this  Government,  and 
the  noisiest  alarms  of  imminent  danger  to 
the  country,  come  from  those  who,  for  a  very 
considerable  period,  have  had  possession  of  its 
vast  revenues,  control  of  its  mighty  power,  in¬ 
fluence  of  its  agents  and  clients,  equally  at  the 
capital  and  in  every  nook  and  corner  of  the 
land,  and  so  have  formed  and  directed  its  policy, 
without  encountering  any  effective  resistance 
or  opposition.  The  Republican  party  has  been 
always,  as  it  is  now,  absolutely  powerless  to 
impress  its  principles  on  the  administration 
of  the  Government.  It  stands  by  and  looks 
on,  wondering  at  the  progress  of  Democratic 
administration  ;  and  wondering,  most  of  a’l, 
at  hearing  those  who  have  conducted  it  entire¬ 
ly  in  their  own  way  now  threatening  to  pull 
down  the  pillars  of  the  Union,  and  involve 
them  all,  with  themselves,  in  a  common  ruin. 
In  the  name  of  God,  Mr.  President,  what  does 
all  this  mean  ?  There  is  but  one  explanation 
of  facts  so  strange  and  anomalous  ;  and  that 
explanation  is,  that  you  still  want  to  continue 
the  administration,  when  you  have  found  out 


4 


that  you  cannot  administer  successfully,  or  even 
with  safety,  for  your  own  system. 

Mr.  President,  if  there  is  a  Senator  here  who 
will  gainsay  me  in  my  next  preliminary  obser¬ 
vation,  let  him  now  look  me  full  in  the  face  and 
deny,  if  he  can,  that  his  section  has  had  its  full 
share  of  political  power  in  this  country,  from 
the  hour  when  the  Government  was  organized 
until  the  exact  moment  when  I  am  speakicg. 
More  than  this,  your  power  in  the  Government 
has  been  altogether  disproportioned  to  your 
numbers.  I  blame  nobody  for  this,  because  I 
know  that-  it  is  human  nature  to  use  all  the 
power  we  have  for  the  advancement  of  our  own 
principles,  our  interests,  and  our  accepted  poli¬ 
cies.  Undoubtedly,  under  similar  circumstan¬ 
ces,  we  of  the  North  would  do  the  same  ;  there¬ 
fore  I  do  not  complain,  but  simply  state  the 
fact. 

If,  now,  the  present  course  of  administration 
of  the  Government  has  so  far  proved  a  failure 
that  you  are  now  prepared  to  pull  it  down  over 
our  heads,  pray  tell  us  who  is  to  blame  but 
yourselves  ?  Sir,  it  is  very  manifest,  from  the 
confessions  of  the  complainants,  that  they  have 
no  present  or  real  cause  of  complaint.  The  se¬ 
cret  really  is,  that  uprising  political  principles, 
which  they  are  no  longer  able  to  keep  down, 
cast  a  shadow  across  their  path  which  disturbs 
their  equanimity. 

The  Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs]  told 
us  that  the  South  is  in  possession  of  eight  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifty  thousand  square  miles  of  country, 
the  most  genial  and  beautiful  that  God  ever 
bestowed  upon  men.  He  said  that  he  was 
proud  of  it ;  and  he  has  a  right  to  be.  He  said 
that  this  fine  region  is  capaable  of  sustaining 
a  population  greater  than  that  of  all  Europe. 
I  believe  that  he  spoke  within  bounds.  He 
told  us  that  that  region  has  twelve  million  peo¬ 
ple;  mark  you,  sir,  only  twelve  million.  But 
we  all  know  that  the  area  of  the  slaveholding 
States  is  greater  by  about  one-third  than  that 
of  the  free  States,  while  its  population  is  at 
least  one  third-less.  He  spoke  glowingly  of  the 
prosperity  of  the  slaveholding  States.  What, 
then,  could  be  raor9  unreasonable  and  absurd 
than  these  whinings  and  complaints  of  Northern 
aggressions  and  oppressions  by  the  great  and 
prosperous  South,  when  the  North  is  entirely 
out  of  power  t  If  he  speaks  relatively,  then  he 
speaks  correctly.  Property  in  slaves  was  never 
so  prosperous  as  to-day.  Look  into  the  slave 
market ;  you  will  find  that  slaves  never  brought 
higher  prices  than  now.  Of  course,  slave  labor 
is  more  profitable  to  the  owner  now  than  it  has 
ever  been.  Sir,  these  Southern  gentlemen  are 
inconsistent  and  contradictory  ;  in  one  breath 
they  are  all  boast  and  glory,  in  the  next  it  is  all 
despair  and  destruction.  Please  reconcile 
some  of  these  contradictions. 

If  the  North  has,  by  means  of  its  underground 
railroads,  fatally  and  treacherously  sapped  and 
undermined  the  foundations  of  your  whole  sys¬ 
tem  of  labor,  how  is  it  that  your  property  has 


risen  in  value,  and  your  prosperity  culminated 
during  all  the  time  it  has  been  going  on  ? 

One  other  preliminary  remark,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent.  The  Senator  from  Georgia  rose  here  in 
his  place,  with  a  solemnity  unusual  for  him, 
and  with  a  countenance  which  was  the  very 
personation  of  despair,  and  announced  to  an 
astonished  people,  that  we,  the  Senators  on 
this  side  of  the  Chamber,  are  the  enemies  of 
his  country.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  felt  that  we  are  ene¬ 
mies  of  his  country,  and  therefore  that  power 
would  be  unsafely  and  dangerously  lodged  in 
our  hands.  Why,  sir,  would  it  be  unsafe  and 
dangerous?  Certainly  they  have  suffered  no 
damage  from  us,  so  far.  He  argues  after  this 
fashion  :  he  complains  that  we  have  been  faith¬ 
less  in  the  execution  of  his  fugitive  law,  and 
therefore  the  slave  property  of  the  South  is  in¬ 
secure  ;  but  you  will  remember,  sir,  that,  long 
before  he  got  through  with  hi3  speech,  the 
slaves  in  Georgia  were  so  loyal  to  their  mas¬ 
ters,  that,  from  the  days  ®f  the  revolutionary 
war  to  the  present  time,  not  one  hundred  of  all 
their  black  generations  have  fled  from  bondage. 
Sir,  if  there  are  those  whose  nature  is  so  grate¬ 
ful  that  they  can  thank  you  for  nothing,  there 
are  others  whose  nature  is  so  discontented  that 
they  will  complain  upon  very  trifling  cause. 
Only  one  poor  negro  a  year,  in  eighty  years, 
has  escaped  from  the  great  State  of  Georgia  ; 
and  yet  he  trembles  with  rage,  declares  war, 
and  lays  hold  upon  the  pillars  of  the  Union. 
One  poor  negro  a  year,  and  even  that  negro 
not  certainly  lost  through  the  Abolitionists  or 
the  aggressions  of  the  North.  The  Senator 
does  not  condescend  to  tell  us  how  any  or  all 
the  hundred  have  been  spirited  away,  but  is 
content  with  boasting  that  all  who  have  been 
lost,  from  all  causes  whatever,  do  not  exceed  a 
hundred. 

Mr.  President,  when  gentlemen  come  here 
and  volunteer  such  arguments  as  these,  it  is 
perfectly  evident  that  there  is  some  motive 
stronger  than  any  consciousness  of  injury  re¬ 
ceived  at  the  hands  of  those  they  accuse.  The 
Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr,  Toombs]  seems  to 
have  been  specially  assigned  to  act  a3  attorney 
general ;  and  he  has  brought  in  a  bill  of  in¬ 
dictment,  charging  upon  the  Senators  on  this 
side  of  the  Chamber  pretty  much  all  the  crimes 
known  in  the  calendar.  It  is  an  indictment 
interspersed  with  something  of  argument,  more 
of  declamation,  and  yet  more  of  vituperation. 
Now,  sir,  I  acknowledge  him  to  be  well  and 
worthily  assigned  to  this  duty,  for  he  is  one  of 
the  ablest  and  most  experienced  members  of 
the  Senate.  If  a  case  could  be.  made  out  at  all 
against  the  North,  he  is  just  the  man  to  make 
it  out.  I  have  already  conceded  his  ability. 
All  who  heard  his  speech  will  admit  that  ho 
does  not  lack  the  necessary  zeal.  If  he  has 
failed,  he  may  say,  with  another  noted  charac¬ 
ter,  that  he  a  fell  where  Satan  could  not  stand.” 
[Laughter.]  Sir,  he  ha3  failed  —  utterly,  to¬ 
tally  failed.  I  pass  by,  for  the  moment,  the  im- 


5 


peachments  of  treason  and  perjury,  to  reach 
another,  namely,  an  impeachment  of  coward¬ 
ice — an  impeachment  which  I  confess  grated 
more  harshly  on  my  ear  than  all  the  other  vi¬ 
tuperations  in  which  he  indulged. 

The  Senator  from  Georgia  said  that  we,  the 
Republican  Senators  here,  “and  the  untold 
millions  we  represent,  have  fallen  so  low,  that 
we  have  not  only  lost  our  virtue,  but  with  it  we 
have  lost  our  courage,  so  that  we  have  not  the 
s^rit  to  resent  an  injury.”  Did  the  Senator 
believe  the  declaration  which  he  made  ?  If  he 
did  believe  it,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he  did,  from 
the  tenor  of  his  language,  he  believed  that  on 
this  side  of  the  Chamber  we  were  all  non-com¬ 
batants.  I  will  not  suppose  that  he  intended  to 
earn  a  cheap  reputation  for  valor,  by  insulting 
those  who  he  supposed  would  never  accept  a 
challenge.  Mr.  President,  the  whole  world 
knows,  and  therefore  the  Senator  from  Georgia 
must  know,  that  the  people  of  the  free  States 
of  this  Union  have  utterly  condemned,  repudi¬ 
ated,  and  abolished,  the  old  and  barbarous 
ractice  of  duelliug ;  every  intelligent  man 
nows,  and  therefore  the  Senator  from  Georgia 
knows,  that  if  a  Senator  here  from  either  of 
these  States  should  engage  in  a  duel,  he  would, 
for  that  cause  alone,  whatever  might  be  his 
excuse,  be  deserted  and  proscribed  5  that  he 
would  be  treated  as  an  outcast ;  while,  if  he 
should  kill  his  adversary,  he  would  be  subjected 
to  indictment  and  trial  for  murder,  and  would 
forever  be  excluded  from  all  public  trust  of 
houor  or  profit  This  tone  of  high  moral  senti¬ 
ment  is  just  and  righteous  in  itself,  and  I  do 
not  mean  to  gainsay  it  now  ;  but  I  do  feel  that 
it  has  placed  me  at  a  disadvantage  here.  I 
feel  it  frequently,  I  feel  that  it  often  places  all 
of  us  here  at  the  mercy  of  those  who,  not  hav¬ 
ing  adopted  the  same  just  sentiments,  act  to¬ 
wards  us  as  if  they  construed  our  constrained 
forbearance  into  a  want  of  courage.  Our 
Northern  people  have  no  reason  to  distrust  the 
courage  of  any  portion  of  their  fellow- citizens. 
Physical  courage,  with  our  Northern  people,,  is 
a  sentiment  so  general,  that  I  must  say  that  it 
is  cheapened  by  its  universality.  No  man  sus¬ 
pects  another  to  be  a  coward  ;  for  it  would  be 
an  exception  to  almost  a  universal  rule.  Who 
ever  has  seen  the  Northern  people  called  into 
the  field  of  combat  to  maintain  their  rights, 
and  not  known  that  braver  men  never  stepped 
upon  the  quarter-deck,  braver  men  never  en¬ 
tered  the  perilous  breach  ?  Who  ever  heard  of 
a  coward  among  them  all,  where  duty  calls? 
Sir,  we  on  this  side,  if  I  understand  the  Senator 
from  Georgia,  and  the  untold  millions  whom  we 
represent,  have  not  the  courage  to  maintain  our 
honor.  Even  if  I  thought  that - 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  I  refer  the  honorable  Sena¬ 
tor  to  my  speech.  I  made  no  such  allegation 
against  the  people  of  the  North.  I  said  that 
people  who  did  not  maintain  their  obligations, 
(and  I  was  alluding  especially  to  the  Republi¬ 
can  party,)  people  who  would  violate  their 


compacts,  were  not  to  be  dreaded  when  they 
threatened  to  march  down  their  millions  upon 
us.  The  speech  is  in  print.  There  is  no  such 
allegation  against  the  people  of  the  North  ;  but 
the  gentlemen  seem  to  consider  themselves  the 
people  of  the  North,  and  I  do  not.  That  is  the 
difference  between  us. 

Mr.  WADE.  Here  is  precisely  what  the 
Senator  did  say:  I  may  construe  it  differently 
from  him,  perhaps.  Let  us  see  what  was  his 
language : 

u  I  doubt  if  there  be  five,  out  of  all  the  mem- 
1  bers  of  the  Republican  party  on  this  floor, 
1  who  will  stand  up  here  to-day,  and  say  they 
‘  are  willing,  either  by  State  or  Federal  legisla- 
1  tion,  or  in  any  other  ^manner,  to  uphold  and 
1  comply  with  this  provision  of  the  Constitution. 
1  I  do  not  believe  there  are  enough  to  meet 

*  God’s  final  requisition  to  save  Sodom.  No, 

*  sir  ;  they  mock  at  constitutional  obligations, 
1  jeer  at  oaths.” 

A  little  further  on  he  said  : 

“  They  place  great  reliance  on  this  arm  of 
1  the  Black  Republican  phalanx,  [alluding  to 
1  the  slaves,  I  suppose.]  When  they  get  ready 
‘  for  this  brotherly  work,  in  the  name  and  be- 
‘  half  of  my  constituents  I  extend  to  them  a 
1  cordial  invitation  to-  come  down  to  see  us. 
1  But  it  is  due  to  candor  to  say  that  their  repu- 
1  tation  needs  some  building  up  among  my 
1  constituents.  We  do  not  think  those  men 
1  the  most  dangerous  who  are  the  most  faith- 
1  less  to  their  compacts  ;  and,  in  very  truth,  we 
‘  have  but  small  fear  of  men,  even  as  leaders  of 
1  untold  millions,  who  have  not  manhood  enough 
1  to  maintain  and  defend  their  own  honors.” 

I  supposed  that  the  leader  was  as  courageous, 
at  all  events,  as  those  he  led.  That  was  the 
construction  that  I  put  upon  it.  I  supposed 
that  it  was  a  declaration  that  we,  and  those 
whom  we  represent,  lacked  that  courage  which 
is  necessary  to  maintain  our  own  honor  when 
it  is  impeached.  If  the  gentleman  says  that 
was  not - 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  I  call  the  Senator’s  attention 
to  this:  I  said  that  those  persons  who  were 
faithless  to  their  compacts,  who  passed  personal 
liberty  bills,  were  not  to  be  dreaded  ;  and  there 
is  no  other  construction,  I  think,  to  be  put  on 
the  language  fairly,  though  the  Senator  can 
give  it  what  construction  he  pleases. 

Mr.  WrADE.  I  accept  the  gentleman’s  con¬ 
struction  of  it.  I  put  a  much  larger  construc¬ 
tion  on  it  than  that ;  but  lam  very  glad  to  hear 
the  Senator’s  explanation,  because!  see  that  it 
is  no  particular  merit  to  us,  nor  to  the  gentle¬ 
men  on  that  side,  that  we  generally  have  phys¬ 
ical  courage.  We  inherit  it  from  our  heroic 
ancestors,  who,  wheu  occasion  required  it, 
dragged  guilty  kings  from  their  thrones,  and 
deprived  them  of  their  crowns,  because  they 
undertook  to  trample  upon  the  rights  of  the 
people;  and  we,  their  descendants,  I  trust  in 
God,  are  as  ready  to  viudieate,  not  only  our 


6 


honor,  but  our  rights,  as  were  our  ancestors  at 
any  period. 

I  do  not  differ  widely  with  the  Senator  on  one 
point.  The  man  who  would  be  faithless  to  his 
obligations,  and  would  commit  perjury,  I  think 
would  be  very  apt  to  be  a  coward  ;  but  on  the 
subject  of  duelling,  I  do  not  wish  to  be  misun¬ 
derstood  either  here  or  by  our  people  at  home. 
I  agree  with  them,  .that  it  is  a  barbarous  mode 
of  settling  difficulties  at  best,  and  ought  to  be 
totally  unnecessary  in  the  advanced  stage  of 
civilization  to  which  we  have  arrived  in  this 
country.  The  restraints  of  civilized  life  with 
us  are  generally  sufficient,  and  they  ought  to 
be  always  sufficient  among  us,  to  oblige  every 
man  to  suppress  violent  utterances  and  to  keep 
within  bounds  of  moderation  and  respectful 
consideration  of  the  rights  and  feelings  of 
others.  The  case  may  be  quite  different  in 
semi-civilized  communities,  where  there  are  no 
such  other  restraints.  I  do  not  know  but  the 
duel  may  be  necessary  there.  In  any  commu¬ 
nity,  if  a  man  cannot  be  restrained  from  offer¬ 
ing  insult  by  any  more  elevated  principle  than 
fear,  it  may  be  necessary  that  he  be  compelled 
to  respect  the  rights  of  others,  even  by  the  fear 
of  combat.  And  I  do  not  say  that  I  should 
not,  in  an  extreme  case,  maintain  my  own  rights 
in  that  barbarous  way  here,  whatever  might  be 
thought  of  it  at  home.  I  have  said  enough, 
Mr.  President,  I  trust,  on  that  point. 

The  Senator  charges  us  all  with  perjury  and 
disloyalty  to  the  Constitution.  Just  see,  now, 
how  inconsistent  a  gentleman,  in  the  heat  of 
argument,  may  become.  He  has  taken  here 
an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  ;  the  same 
oath  which  we  have  taken,  and  which  he  accu¬ 
ses  us  of  breaking ;  and  yet  he  announced  to 
us  that  he  is  impatient — nay,  eager — for  a  sym¬ 
bol  of  war  from  the  Old  Dominion  against  the 
Constitution  and  the  Union.  I  do  not  use  his 
exact  language,  though  I  have  it  before  me. 
He  is  ready  and  eager  to  second  her  motion. 
“  One  blast  from  her  bugle  horn,”  he  said, 
“would  call  to  their  feet  a  million  of  men.”  A 
million  of  men,  sir !  A  million  of  men  for 
what  ?  Why,  a  million  of  men  to  topple  down 
the  pillars  of  this  Republic,  and  overwhelm  the 
whole  country  in  one  universal  ruin. 

And  all  this  the  million  of  men  roused  by  the 
bugle  horn  of  the  Old  Dominion  are  to  do  next 
March,  if  a  Republican  shall  be  elected,  con¬ 
stitutionally  elected  President,  in  November. 
Does  he  not  stand  on  high  ground,  sir?  I  ask 
him  to  say,  for  himself,  that  he  occupies  high 
vantage  ground,  while  charging  us  with  treason 
and  violation  of  our  oaths,  when  he  is  with  the 
same  breath  threatening  to  pull  down  the  pillars 
of  the  Union.  Sir,  if  this  is  not  treason,  then 
I  do  not  know  what  it  is.  If  it  is  not  a  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution, 
then  I  do  not  understand  the  import  of  the 
words.  I  know,  indeed,  that  these  things  are 
said  in  the  heat  of  debate,  and  may  mean  but 
very  little  ;  but  they  go  out  to  the  world  as  de¬ 


liberate  debates,  and  therefore  must  be  noticed 
here. 

And  now  I  dismiss  this  point,  and  pass  from 
the  declamation  to  the  argument  of  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  Georgia ;  for,  as  I  have  said,  he  is 
among  the  ablest  of  his  class.  No  man  is  more 
competent  to  make  out  a  case  against  the  Re¬ 
publicans  or  the  people  of  the  North.  He  has 
deliberated  long;  he  has  studied  deeply,  not 
merely  in  the  history  of  ancient  and  modern 
Europe,  but  even  in  the  history  of  ancient 
Greece,  to  fortify  his  argument.  What  does 
his  accusation  amount  to?  First,  we  have  not 
been  quite  nimble-footed  enough  in  executing 
his  fugitive  law.  He  gives  us  not  one  instance, 
not  one  case  of  delinquency.  He  is  content 
with  making  a  general  charge,  that  we  are  faith¬ 
less  to  the  Constitution  in  this  respect.  Now, 
sir,  I  know  of  no  case  of  resistance  to  the  exe¬ 
cution  of  the  fugitive  law  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
I  know  a  great  many  men  there  who  believe, 
before  God  and  man,  that  it  is  unconstitutional, 
yet  I  know  of  no  man  who  has  stood  forth  to 
resist  its  execution.  On  the  contrary,  whenever 
a  case  under  it  has  come  before  our  courts,  it 
has  been  carefully  scrutinized,  and  the  law 
has  been  most  rigorously  executed.  There 
have  been  doubtful  cases;  there  have  even  been 
cases  in  which  there  was  little  room  left  for 
doubt  that  the  seeming  remedies  granted,  by 
that  law  have  been  perverted  to  the  atrocious 
purpose  of  kidnapping  and  carrying  freemen 
into  slavery. 

A  citizen  of  Ohio,  not  long  ago,  whose  name 
I  do  not  now  recollect,  was  taken  to  St.  Louis, 
and  there  imprisoned  under  State  law,  to  be 
sold  into  slavery  to  pay  the  charges  of  his  de¬ 
tention,  until  he  was  released  by  the  people  of 
Ohio.  This  was  no  solitary  case  ;  such  cases 
frequently  occur.  I  meet  the  general  charge 
with  a  general  denial,  and  I  assert,  that  the 
people  of  Ohio  have  not  been  faithless  in  the 
execution  of  this  most  rigorous,  odious,  and,  as 
I  believe,  in  many  of  its  provisions,  unconsti¬ 
tutional  law.  I  pass  briefly  over  the  point  that 
the  constitutional  provision  concerning  fugitives 
devolves  on  the  State  Governments,  and  not  upon 
Congress,  the  courts  having  adjudicated  that 
point  against  my  opinions.  I  will  say,  however, 
that  no  lawyer  would  agree  with  the  courts, 
were  it  a  case  of  the  first  impression.  I  deny, 
moreover,  that  the  decisions  of  the  courts  have 
been  uniform,  as  the  Senator  from  Georgia 
claims.  Judge  Horn  blower,  of  New  Jersey,  on 
habeas  corpus ,  held  the  law  unconstitutional, 
and  discharged  the  fugitive  for  that  reason. 
We  have  one  Senator  among  us  here  [Mr. 
Wigfall]  who  thinks  that  the  late  Mr.  Web¬ 
ster  knew  less  of  constitutional  law  than  most 
other  men.  It  is  not  for  me  to  re-establish  Mr. 
Webster ;  but  whether  he  knew  much  or  little, 
it  was  his  deliberate  opinion,  that  the  law  had 
no  warrant  in  the  Constitution,  though  he  de¬ 
ferred  to  decisions  of  the  courts. 

I  come  now  to  your  new  fugitive  bill,  which,  in 


7 


many  of  its  provisions,  I  have  no  doubt  is  un¬ 
constitutional  ;  and  I  think  in  these  points  it 
has  not  yet  been  judged  constitutional.  It  is 
not,  however,  my  purpose  to  argue  its  constitu¬ 
tionality.  I  meet  in  this  case,  as  I  did  in  the 
law  of  1793,  the  vague  charge  of  unfaithfulness 
on  our  part  with  a  general  denial.  I  call  your 
attention,  sir,  to  the  fact  that  there  prevails 
among  the  people  very  generally  an  idea  that 
many  of  the  provisions  of  that  law  are  uncon¬ 
stitutional.  This  idea  tends  to  produce  irrita¬ 
tion.  Why  do  the  people  adopt  the  idea  that 
it  is  unconstitutional  ?  The  subject  being  col¬ 
lateral,  I  will  only  allude  to  that  section  of  the 
law  which  confers  judicial  powers  on  commis¬ 
sioners  appointed  by  the  courts,  who  are  not, 
and  cannot,  thus  appointed,  be  judges.  The 
people  believe  this  provision  unconstitutional, 
and  so  do  I. 

Again:  the  bill  gives  ten  dollars  for  a  de¬ 
cision  in  favor  of  the  claimant,  and  five  for  a 
decision  in  favor  of  the  fugitive.  Gentlemen 
here  have  ridiculed  the  idea  that  such  an  in¬ 
ducement  could  bias  the  magistrate,  but  I  be¬ 
lieve  with  the  people  that  such  magistrates  as 
you  generally  have,  under  this  law,  would  be 
determined  by  a  thirtieth  part  of  the  fee  that 
was  paid  Judas  Iscariot  for  like  services.  The 
people,  for  what  I  know,  may  think  this  pro¬ 
vision  unconstitutional.  I  agree  with  them  so 
far  as  to  say,  that  if  meanness  in  a  law  could 
make  it  unconstitutional,  the  people  are  right. 

Again,  there  is  another  provision  in  the  law : 
when  you  have  got  the  certificate  of  the  magis¬ 
trate,  the  alleged  fugitive  can  be  taken  out  of 
the  State  in  defiance  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.  Thus  the  law,  in  time  of  profound 
peace,  strikes  down  this  great  writ  of  freedom, 
and  in  this  I  also  agree  with  them.  The  law 
not  only  denies  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus , 
but  it  also  denies  the  trial  by  jury — an  essen¬ 
tial  right.  It  is  these  portions  of  the  law 
that  render  it  so  odious  and  unpopular.  The 
people  know  that  its  execution  is  attended  with 
dangers  to  human  freedom,  and  they  are  jeal¬ 
ous  of  summary  proceedings  so  extraordinary 
and  unusual. 

Sir,  we  have  never  denied  the  obligation  of 
the  States  to  deliver  fugitives  who  are  such 
within  the  purview  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States — never,  never.  But  the  law  is 
an  exceedingly  offensive  and  obnoxious  law. 
You  know  that  without  my  telling  you.  The 
people  of  the  free  States  are  deeply  imbued 
with  the  sentiment  that,  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  as  under  the  law 
of  nature,  every  innocent  mau  ha3  a  right  to 
liberty.  They  do,  however,  well  know,  and  so 
understand,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  permits  a  man  iu  one  State,  who  is  held  I 
by  the  laws  thereof  to  owe  service  or  labor  to 
another  man,  to  be  reclaimed  when  he  flees 
from  such  obligation,  to  be  delivered  up  to 
such  claimant.  This  provision  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  our  people  neither  deny  nor  resist.  But 


the  Senator  from  Georgia,  and  every  other 
Senator,  knows  how  difficult  it  is  to  execute  a 
law  which  goes  against  the  hearts  and  con¬ 
sciences  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people.  We 
may  complain  of  it;  we  might  even  deplore  it; 
but  no  law-making  authority  could  mend  the 
case.  Nothing  short  of  the  interposition  of 
Almighty  power,  changing  the  hearts  of  men, 
can  make  them  prompt  and  eager  to  execute 
your  obnoxious  law. 

I  do  not  stand  here  to  deceive  you,  my 
friends.  I  tell  you  the  truth  just  as  it  is.  Out 
of  every  thousand  men  who  shall  see  a  race 
between  a  claimant  and  a  slave,  nine  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  will,  from  the  bottom  of  their 
hearts,  wish  him  to  escape.  Neither  you  nor 
I  can  help  the  matter  by  legislation.  Acting 
as  magistrates  sworn  to  execute  the  law,  it  may 
be  executed  when  a  case  is  completely  made 
out,  beyond  all  chance  for  casuistry  or  cavil ; 
but  very  little  practical  benefit  can  result  from 
it.  Who  is  to  be  blamed  for  it?  Look  at  your 
own  section,  and  you  find  there  human  nature 
exactly  the  same,  when  the  slave  trader  brings 
the  slaves  stolen  from  Africa  into  your  ports 
in  violation  of  the  laws  making  the  act  piracy, 
and  denouncing  against  it  the  punishment  of 
death.  Your  jurors  acquit  him  against  all 
evidence  and  the  admonitions  of  the  courts. 
The  innocent  men  thus  stolen  from  Africa,  and 
thus  brought  into  your  States,  are  irreclaimably 
sold  in  your  markets ;  ostentatiously  adver¬ 
tised,  and  sold  at  your  agricultural  fairs.  I 
assert,  then,  that  the  slave  pirate  goes  abroad 
with  impunity  in  your  States,  because  your 
magistrates  cannot  execute  the  law.  With 
what  face,  then,  can  you  stand  here,  and  accuse 
us  of  not  being  swift-footed  enough  in  exe¬ 
cuting  a  law  which  is  a  greater  abomination 
to  us  than  the  laws  abolishing  the  African  slave 
trade  can  be  to  you  ? 

Mr.  President,  there  should  be  a  little  reason 
and  common  sense  exercised  in  these  cases.  I 
do  not  care  if  every  judge  and  every  marshal 
may  be  ever  so  eager  to  execute  your  law ;  if 
the  hearts  of  the  people,  I  say  again,  are  op¬ 
posed  to  it,  who  is  to  blame  for  that  ?  If  there  is 
any  blame,  it  is  on  Him  who  moulded  the  hearts 
of  men.  Your  law  can  give  you  no  remedy. 
You  may  multiply  its  penalties ;  you  may  make 
it  bristle  all  over  like  a  porcupine  with  penal¬ 
ties  ;  it  would  be  of  no  service  to  you;  because, 
although  when  you  get  a  case  you  may  execute 
it  under  the  oaths  of  your  magistrates,  ninety- 
nine  times  in  one  hundred,  the  people  be¬ 
ing  against  you,  the  fugitive  will  find  a  way  to 
escape  in  precisely  the  same  way  that  your  pi¬ 
rates,  who  bring  men  from  Africa  and  sell  them 
in  the  market,  constantly  escape  with  you. 
Now,  sir,  I  would  have  just  as  much  ground  to 
stand  here  and  accuse  the  whole  South  of  be¬ 
ing  guilty  of  perjury,  and  guilty  of  the  most 
manifest  violation  of  all  law,  because  the  vic¬ 
tims  of  the  Wanderer  were  not  released,  and 
the  officers  of  that  vessel  condemned  and  exe- 


*uted,  as  they  deserved  to  be,  as  you  have  to 
stand  forth  and  say  that  we  on  our  part  do  not 
execute  laws  equally  and  far  more  odious  to  us. 

The  next  accusation,  and  the  strongest  one, 
of  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  is,  that  we  pass 
what  he  calls  personal  liberty  bills,  which  were, 
as  he  claimed,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  ;  and  he  said  that  the  State 
of  Ohio  occupied  the  same  position  with  the 
other  free  States  in  that  particular.  Well,  sir, 
as  he  placed  Ohio  upon  the  same  ground  with 
the  others,  I  have  not  taken  pains  to  examine 
the  action  of  the  others,  trusting  that  if  there 
was  no  foundation  under  heaven  for  the 
charge  he  made  against  Ohio,  it  was  equally 
groundless  against  the  other  States.  I  say, 
then,  to  that  Senator  and  the  Senate,  that  the 
State  of  Ohio  has  never  passed  a  law  in  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States; 
that  it  never  has  been  derelict  in  its  duty  in 
this  respect.  Does  any  Senator  here  suppose 
that  a  sovereign  State  in  this  Union  is  going 
to  relinquish  all  her  right  of  protection  over 
her  citizens,  because  there  is  a  provision  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  by  which  a  certain  class 
of  individuals  may  be  taken  out  of  the  State  ? 
That  would  be  to  abandon  every  individual  to 
the  ruthless  claim  of  any  unprincipled  man 
who  sought  to  claim  him.  Cannot  a  sovereign 
State  of  this  Union  prevent  the  kidnapping  of 
her  free  citizens,  because  you  have  a  right  to 
claim  a  slave  fleeing  from  service  ? 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does 
indeed  say  that  the  escaping  fugitive  shall  be 
given  up.  But  it  does  not  prescribe  how  the 
fact  that  he  owes  service  shall  be  ascertained; 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does 
not  mean  that  any  freeman  of  a  State  shall  be 
given  up  as  a  fugitive.  Now,  I  appeal  to  the 
candor  of  the  Senator  from  Georgia.  He  has 
read  with  great  care  the  proceedings  of  the 
Federal  Constitutional  Convention.  He  knows 
the  jealousy  concerning  State  rights  that  per¬ 
vaded  that  body.  Does  he  believe  that  its 
members  would  have  ever  consented  to  a  pro¬ 
vision  which  would  have  deprived  the  States  of 
the  power  to  protect  and  defend  their  own  citi¬ 
zens  ?  No,  sir,  never. 

You  are  continually  repeating  the  assertion 
that  this  fugitive  slave  law  provision  was  deem¬ 
ed  an  important  one  by  the  fathers,  and  that 
the  Union  could  not  have  been  effected  without 
it.  On  the  contrary,  sir,  it  was  a  mere  after¬ 
thought.  The  Constitution  was  complete,  in 
all  its  important  provisions,  before  any  man 
thought  of  this  thing.  It  was  put  into  the  Con¬ 
stitution  with  very  little  deliberation ;  and  those 
who  put  it  there  had  no  idea  that,  in  doing  so, 
they  were  taking  away  from  the  States  the  most 
important  element  of  sovereignty  —  namely, 
their  power  to  protect  their  own  citizens 
against  unlawful  seizures  and  searches  and 
extradition.  The  rights  of  the  States,  the  only 
protection  made  against  overpowering  and  con¬ 
centrated  despotism,  were  the  one  especial  ob¬ 


ject  of  preservation.  The  States  battled  inch 
by  inch  against  the  surrender  of  any  State 
power.  I  judge,  therefore,  that  they  never  in¬ 
tended  to  confer  upon  Congress,  or  upon  any 
one  State,  or  anybody,  a  right  to  enter  another 
sovereign  State,  and  take  away,  in  a  summary 
and  arbitrary  manner,  whomsoever  he  should 
choose  to  claim  as  a  fugitive  from  another 
State. 

But  the  Senator  said  that  the  free  States, 
and  Ohio  among  the  rest,  have  committed  a 
kind  of  perjury  in  disregarding  your  fugitive 
law,  by  passing  personal  liberty  bills.  So  far 
as  the  law  of  Ohio  is  concerned,  we  shall  see 
how  plain  a  tale  will  put  down  his  argument. 
Her  law  consists  of  three  sections.  The  saving 
clause  of  the  last  section  prevents  any  such 
construction  as  the  Senator  himself  put  upon 
the  statute.  It  is  entitled  u  A  law  to  prevent 
slaveholding  and  kidnapping  in  Ohio.”  The 
last  section  declares  : 

u  Nothing  in  the  preceding  sections  of  this 
1  act  shall  apply  to  any  act  done  by  any  person 
1  under  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
1  United  States,  or  of  any  law  of  the  United 
1  States  made  in  pursuance  thereof.” 

Now,  I  ask  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  if  he 
was  upon  the  bench,  and  a  fugitive  from  labor 
or  service  in  another  State  was  brought  before 
him,  under  the  provisions  of  this  law,  would  he 
find  any  difficulty  in  surrendering  him  into  the 
hands  of  the  person  who  had  made  out  his 
claim  to  his  service  ?  Would  he  say  that  the 
preceding  section  of  this  law  overruled  this  ex¬ 
planatory  clause,  and  that  he  was  bound,  at  all 
events,  to  trample  the  Constitution  under  foot? 
No,  sir;  he  would  give  it  no  such  construction 
as  that. 

Mr.  President,  I  say  in  all  sincerity  and  ear¬ 
nestness  to  every  man  who  holds  to  the  conser¬ 
vation  of  State  rights,  that  you  endanger  the 
rights  of  your  own  State,  you  endanger  the  lib¬ 
erties  of  this  whole  nation,  when  you  contend 
against  the  power  of  the  States  to  pass  laws 
protecting  their  own  citizeus  from  unlawful 
seizures  and  kidnapping.  At  all  hazards,  nei¬ 
ther  asperity  of  language,  nor  a  frowning  brow, 
nor  violent  denunciation,  will  ever  induce  the 
State  of  Ohio  to  forget  what  belongs  to  her  sov 
ereignty,  what  is  due  to  her  honor,  and  the 
protection  of  her  own  citizens.  She  takes  no 
prouder  position  on  this  subject  than,  1  hope  in 
God,  every  other  State  in  the  Union  does.  Then 
the  Senator  was  wrong,  he  was  uncandid,  to 
stand  forth  and  say  that  our  constituents  are 
perjured,  that  they  are  traitors,  that  they  have 
violated  the  law  of  the  land,  when  they  had 
taken  every  precaution  to  award  to  the  citizens 
of  other  States,  holding  a  species  of  property 
that  we  utterly  repudiate,  all  their  rights. 

The  State  of  Ohio  sends  no  Senators  here  to 
denounce  the  sovereignties  or  people  ot  other 
States ;  but  when  her  rights  are  disputed  or 
her  honor  assailed  in  this  high  council,  her 
ambassadors  here  would  be  unfaithful  to  their 


9 


smst  if  they  did  not  hurl  back  such  uujust  im¬ 
putations. 

The  third  count  in  the  Senator’s  indictment 
is,  that  we  intend  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the 
vast  Territories  of  this  Union.  That  charge,  I 
confess,  is  true.  We  do  so  intend.  If  I  under¬ 
stand  the  objects  and  purpose  of  the  Republi¬ 
can  party,  if  I  understand  the  emergencies  of 
the  case  that  brought  that  great  party  into  ex¬ 
istence,  it  was  this  very  subject.  The  General 
Government,  acting  in  Congress  faithlessly  to 
all  that  it  had  covenanted  heretofore,  had  bro¬ 
ken  down  every  barrier,  and  violated  every 
pledge  it  had  given  of  freedom  in  any  of  our 
Territories.  These  covenants  being  overthrown, 
the  Republican  party  arose  to  rescue  freedom. 
Had  there  been  no  violation  of  the  Missouri 
compromise,  it  is  very  probable  there  would 
have  been  no  Republican  party  here.  We  did 
embody  ourselves  into  a  party,  in  order  to  res¬ 
cue,  protect,  and  defend,  the  free  Territories  of 
this  country  against  the  pollution  of  slavery.  I 
have  no  concealments  to  make.  There  we  now 
stand  ;  this  is  our  platform  ;  on  it  we  will  stand 
forever. 

But  the  Senator  says  that  the  slaveholders 
have  an  undoubted  right  to  go  with  their  slaves 
into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  and  he 
claims  that  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
gives  them  that  warrant.  There  is  no  man 
who  has  more  reverence  for  the  decision  of 
honest  courts,  when  made  on  due  deliberation 
upon  matters  of  private  right,  and  within  their 
jurisdiction,  than  I  have.  I  know  how  essen¬ 
tial  it  is  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  every  com¬ 
munity  that  the  decisions  of  courts  settling  the 
private  rights  of  men  in  the  last  resort,  even 
if  they  are  believed  to  be  wrong,  must  be  lived 
up  to  and  have  effect.  That  has  been  my  edu¬ 
cation — my  principle ;  what  I  have  held  always, 
and  hold  to-day;  but  in  just  as  much  as  I  re¬ 
vere  an  honest  court,  keeping  within  its  own 
jurisdiction,  restraining  itself  from  all  political 
considerations,  and  adjudging  the  rights  of  men 
according  to  the  law  in  its  purity,  so  in  exact 
proportion  do  1  abhor  and  scout  from  me  a 
corrupt  judge,  who,  for  any  purpose,  will  imper¬ 
tinently  reach  over,  outside,  and  beyond  the 
case  before  him,  and  endeavor  to  advance  the 
political  cause  of  one  party  or  another  by  de¬ 
cisions  that  he  may  pretend  to  make. 

Sir,  it  is  the  same  with  Federal  courts  as  with 
every  other.  The  moment  a  Federal  court  tran¬ 
scends*  its  legitimate  authority,  for  the  purpose 
of  effecting  some  political  object,  its  interfer¬ 
ence  i3  impertinent;  it  is  of  no  validity ;  and, 
with  the  high  courts  of  Georgia,  I  say,  I  hold 
it  in  utter  contempt.  Yes,  sir,  [to  Mr.  Toombs,] 

I  like  the  spirit  of  your  courts,  from  which  you 
are  now  so  ready  to  depart.  They  stood  up 
against  what  they  considered  a  corrupt  decis¬ 
ion  of  this  Federal  court,  and  said  they  held 
it  in  utter  contempt.  That  was  right.  Well, 
sir,  if  there  ever  was  a  holding  on  God’s  earth 


that  would  warrant  any  judge,  private  man,  oi 
Senator,  in  saying  that  he  held  it  in  utter  con¬ 
tempt,  it  is  what  is  called  the  Dred  Scott  de¬ 
cision,  so  manifestly  a  usurpation  of  power; 
so  manifestly  done  in  order  to  give  a  bias  to 
political  action,  that  no  man,  though  he  be  a 
fool,  can  fail  to  see  it. 

What  was  the  case?  An  old  negro,  whom 
age  had  rendered  valueless,  happens  to  fall  in 
the  way  of  the  politicians  at  a  period  when  it 
was  thought  exceedingly  a-esirable  that  the 
question  of  Congressional  authority  over  sla¬ 
very  in  the  Territories  shall  be  tried,  and  Drcd 
Scott  prosecutes  for  his  liberty  in  the  Federal 
courts;  and,  by  the  way,  after  he  had  prosecu¬ 
ted  his  case  through,  and  his  liberty  was  denied 
him  by  the  court,  I  believe  the  very  next  day 
the  master  gave  him  his  liberty.  He  had  served 
the  purposes  of  the  politicians,  and  they  ought 
to  have  given  him  a  pension  for  life  for  having 
been  the  John  Doe  of  the  transact  on.  I  do 
not  know  of  what  authority  the  case  may  be, 
but  its  getting-up  looks  to  me  exceedingly  sus¬ 
picious.  There  was  a  concurrence  of  circum¬ 
stances  that  very  rarely  happen  of  themselves. 
Old  Dred  Scott  sued  for  his  freedom,  and  a 
plea  was  put  in  that  he,  being  a  descendant  of 
an  African,  and  his  ancestors  slaves,  he  could 
not  sue  in  that  court ;  he  had  no  right  to  be 
there,  had  no  standing  there.  The  court  go  on 
and  argue  themselves  into  the  belief  that  either 
a  man  may  be  so  monstrously  low,  or  the  court 
itself  so  monstrously  high,  that  he  cannot  sue 
in  its  presence  for  his  rights.  I  believe  this  is 
the  first  nation  on  God’s  earth  that  ever  placed 
any  mortal  man,  or  anybody  bearing  the  human 
form,  on  so  low  a  level,  or  any  court  on  so  high 
a  one,  as  that.  But  let  this  go.  Dred  Scott 
brought  his  suit.  The  plea  in  abatement  was 
demurred  to ;  the  question  arose  upon  that 
demurrer,  and  a  majority  of  the  court  decided 
that  Dred  Scott,  being  a  negro,  a  descendant 
of  an  African,  and  his  ancestors  having  been 
slaves,  he  could  not  maintain  a  suit  in  that 
court,  because  he  was  not  a  citizen,  under  the 
law.  Now,  sir,  I  ask  every  lawyer  here,  was 
not  there  an  end  of  the  case?  In  the  name  of 
God,  Judge  Taney,  what  did  you  retain  it  for 
any  longer?  You  said  Dred  Scott  could  not 
sue  ;  he  could  not  obtain  his  liberty  ;  he  was 
out  of  court ;  and  what  further  had  you  to  do 
with  all  the  questions  that  you  say  were  involv¬ 
ed  in  that  suit?  Upon  every  principle  of  ad¬ 
judication,  you  ought  not  to  have  gone  further. 
No  court  has  ever  held  it  more  solemnly  than 
the  Federal  courts,  that  they  will  not  go  on  to 
.decide  any  more  than  is  before  the  court,  and 
necessary  to  make  the  decision  ;  and  every 
lawyer  knows  that  if  they  do,  all  they  say  more 
is  mere  talk,  and,  though  said  by  judges  in  a 
court-house,  has  just  as  much  operation  and 
effect  as  if  it  had  been  said  by  a  horse  dealer, 
in  a  bar-room,  and  no  more.  And  yet  we  are 
told  that  we  must  follow  the  dicta  of  these  pack¬ 
ed  judges — for  they  were  packed,  and  I  have 


10 


about  as  little  respect  for  a  packed  court  as  I 
have  for  a  packed  jury — a  majority  of  them 
interested,  too,  as  I  believe,  in  the  very  ques¬ 
tion  to  be  decided  ;  for,  I  believe,  the  majority 
who  concurred  in  the  opinion  were  all  slave¬ 
holders,  and,  of  course,  if  anybody  was  in¬ 
terested  to  give  a  favorable  construction  to  the 
holders  of  that  species  of  property,  these  men 
were  interested  in  the  question. 

Strange  as  it  may  appear,  those  who  com¬ 
plain  of  Northern  aggression  have  not  only 
every  other  department  under  their  feet,  but 
with  less  than  one-third  of  the  population  of 
the  North,  you  happen  to  have  a  majority  of 
the  Supreme  Court  on  your  side,  and  always 
have  had.  I  will  not  say  that  that  is  the  rea 
son  why  the  decisions  of  courts  of  late  are  mag¬ 
nified  into  such  importance.  Immaculate  their 
decisions  are  now,  it  seems.  The  very  party 
who,  a  few  years  ago,  within  the  memory  of  us 
all,  held  that  their  decisions  were  of  no  effect 
whatever  on  governmental  action,  when  com¬ 
ing  in  conflict  with  the  views  of  the  President 
or  the  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  Government, 
have  turned  round  of  late,  and  have  found  a 
virtue  in  that  court  that  can  ride  triumphantly 
over  every  other  department  of  this  Govern¬ 
ment.  It  is  a  palpable  heresy,  and  must  be 
abandoned.  The  liberties  of  this  nation  cannot 
consist  with  the  doctrine  now  set  up  on  the 
other  side  of  this  Chamber  with  regard  to  your 
Supreme  Court. 

I  do  not  want  to  go  back  to  see  what  Jeffer¬ 
son  and  others  said  about  it.  I  know  the  na- 1 
ture  of  man.  I  know,  as  they  knew,  that  to  j 
arm  thi3  judiciary  with  a  power,  not  only  to  de-  j 
cide  questions  between  private  individuals,  but ! 
to  affect  the  legislation  of  the  nation,  to  affect ! 
the  action  of  your  President,  to  affect  the  co¬ 
ordinate  branches  of  this  Government,  is  a 
fatal  heresy,  that,  if  persisted  in  by  a  majority 
of  the  people,  cannot  result  in  any  other  thau 
an  utter  consolidated  despotism ;  and  I  am 
amazed  that  men  who  have  had  their  eyes 
open,  and  who  have  held  to  other  doctrines  in 
better  days,  should,  for  any  temporary  purpose, 
heave  overboard,  and  bury  in  the  deep  sea,  the 
sheet-anchor  of  the  liberties  of  this  nation. 

I  say  to  my  friends  on  the  other  side — for  I 
call  them  friends  for  this  purpose — we  are  all 
interested  alike  in  this  question.  God  knows, 
if  you  once  have  it  established  and  acquiesced 
in  by  the  people  of  this  Union,  that  the  dicta 
of  the  Supreme  Court — a  political  court  by  its 
very  constitution,  yea,  packed  on  this  very  sub¬ 
ject,  as  every  Senator  here  knows — are  to  be 
the  laws  binding  on  every  other  department, 
we  have  the  meanest  despotism  that  ever  pre-* 
vailed  on  God  Almighty’s  earth.  But  I  have 
no  fears  of  it,  sir.  You  may  effect  a  temporary 
purpose  by  it;  but  a  doctrine  so  absurd,  so  in¬ 
compatible  with  the  minds  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race,  so  inconsistent  with  the  great  principles 
of  free  government,  will  never  be  permitted  to 
stand. 


In  the  Dred  Scott  decision — I  will  not  call  it 
a  decision,  but  in  this  dictum ,  this  talk  of  the 
judges,  for  that  was  all  it  was — they  over¬ 
turned  every  decision  their  own  court  had  made 
for  more  than  seventy  years  ;  they  holding,  prior 
to  that  time,  that  Congress  had  full  and  plenary 
power  over  the  Territories  of  the  United  States. 
Judge  Marshall  so  decided,  and  the  court  bad 
followed  his  decision,  and  every  other  depart¬ 
ment  of  the  Government  was  well  satisfied. 
Therefore,  this  infallible  court  can  overturn  the 
most  settled  decisions  of  its  own  and  of  other 
courts,  and  nobody  can  question  its  acts  1  A 
strange  doctrine  that,  that  the  sayings  of  men 
who  were  put  upon  the  bench  under  the  most 
questionable  circumstances,  packed  for  a  par¬ 
ticular  decision,  and  not  having  a  chance 
even  to  make  that  upon  the  question  before 
them,  should  be  the  ne  plus  ultra,  after  they 
themselves  have  overturned  all  that  have  gone 
before  them.  This  is  a  position  that  cannot 
outlive  this  generation. 

Where  did  these  judges  find  the  power  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  carry  sla¬ 
very  into  the  Territories  ?  If  they  had  any¬ 
thing  to  ground  their  dicta  upon,  they  had  the 
power  to  show  it  written  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States ;  but  there  is  no  such  thing 
there.  I  remember  very  well  reading  (for  I 
was  not  here  at  that  time)  that  in  1850  Mr. 
Calhoun  set  up  this  doctrine,  and  it  was  so  ex¬ 
treme  that  he  had  no  second  in  the  Senate. 
He  was  challenged  by  Mr.  Clay  upon  it.  Mr. 
Clay  told  him  he  was  amazed  and  astonished 
that  any  man  should  hold  such  a  doctrine,  and  he 
asked  him  :  “  Where  do  you  find  your  constitu¬ 
tional  warrant  for  it?”  and  told  him,  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  was  more  latitudinous  than 
anything  ever  held  by  old  John  Adams  and  the 
Federal  party  at  any  period.  Mr.  Calhoun,  I 
think,  found  no  warrant  in  the  Constitution  ;  he 
did  not  deign  to  reply.  Yet,  within  ten  years, 
this  doctrine  has  grown  up  into  a  great  tree,  so 
that  some  fowls  lodge  in  the  branches  thereof. 
[Laughter.] 

They  find  no  warrant  in  the  Constitution ; 
they  find  none  in  legal  logic  or  reason.  It  is 
said  now  that  the  Territories  being  the  common 
property  of  the  States,  the  citizens  of  each  State 
have  a  right  to  go  into  them  with  any  property 
that  they  perchance  may  have.  I  deny  the 
postulate.  These  Territories  do  not  belong  to 
the  States,  as  States.  They  belong  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  the  United  States.  Congress  is  the  trustee 
for  them ;  but  no  State  can  claim  any  portion 
of  them.  The  States,  as  States,  have  nothing 
to  do  with  them.  Suppose  the  Senator  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  Douglas]  owns  a  plantation  in 
Mississippi,  in  his  own  right  or  that  of  his 
children,  and  he  has  slaves  there  working  upon 
that  plantation,  while  he  is  a  resident  of  the 
State  of  Illinois.  Suppose,  there  is  a  Congres¬ 
sional  prohibition  saying  that  he  cannot  take 
his  property  into  that  new  Territory.  Let  me 
ask  these  casuists  now,  which  State  is  it  whose 


11 


sovereignty  is  invaded;  that  where  the  Senator 
lives,  or  that  where  the  negroes  live?  Can 
anybody  tell  me?  State  equality,  they  say,  is 
not  preserved.  But  the  State 'equality  6f  which 
State?  Illinois,  where  the  slaves  are  owned,  is 
her  sovereignty  hewed  down,  or  the  sovereignty 
of  the  State  of  Mississippi,  where  the  negroes 
hoe  the  Senator’s  corn  and  pick  his  cotton? 
There  never  has  been  a  respectable  argument 
for  any  such  position  as  that. 

May  not  the  same  ground  be  applied  to  other 
cases?  Suppose  we  had  annexed — as  I  pre¬ 
sume  we  shall  ultimately  annex — the  Fejee 
Islands  to  this  nation.  In  those  islands,  the 
people  not  only  enslave  each  other,  but  they 
actually  kill  and  eat  each  other.  Now,  sup¬ 
pose  a  Senator  from  the  State  of  Fejee  should 
appear  in  this  body ;  suppose  that  he  should 
claim  the  right  of  his  constituents  to  bring 
with  them  their  chattels  into  any  of  our  Terri¬ 
tories,  and  claim  the  right  of  the  law  in  that 
country  to  practice  cannibalism  upon  them, 
that  he  might  roast  and  boil  them  as  well  as 
enslave  them.  He  would  claim,  if  you  did  not 
permit  this  to  be  done, 11  that  the  State  of  Fejee 
‘  has  not  equal  rights  with  the  other  States  of 
1  this  Union;  a  gentleman  owns  his  property; 

‘  it  is  an  undoubted  law  of  my  State  that  we 
‘  may  fatten  men  for  the  roast,  and  we  have  a 
‘  right  to  bring  them  here  for  the  same  pur- 
‘  pose ;  and  if  you  do  not  permit  us  to  do  so, 

‘  we  will  pull  down  the  columns  of  the  Repub- 
1  lie,  laying  it  outspread  in  one  universal  ruin.” 
[Laughter.]  I  suppose  the  Senator  from  Illi¬ 
nois  [Mr.  Douglas]  would  say,  u  The  Territo- 
‘  ries  have  a  perfect  right  to  vote  cannibalism 
1  in  or  to  vote  it  out ;  I  do  not  care  whether 
‘  they  vote  it  up  or  down ;  but  they  have  the 

*  right,  and  shall  be  perfectly  free  to  do  it.” 
[Laughter.]  Another  Senator  would  arise,  and 
say  the  people  of  Fejee  not  only  have  the  right 
to  bring  them  in,  but  they  have  the  right  to  be 
protected  in  doing  so  there  under  the  laws  of 
Congress.  Another  one  says  that  Congress 
has  no  power  to  pass  laws  on  that  subject  what¬ 
ever;  but  the  courts,  which  are  now  omnipo¬ 
tent  in  all  things,  may,  without  law,  declare 
what  the  law  is,  and  we  must  all  bow  down  to 
it.  There  is  a  difference  even  on  the  other 
aide  as  to  these  shades  or  colors  of  Congres¬ 
sional  authority  ;  but,  nevertheless,  you  are  all 
•ii  for  spreading  slavery  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

Take  another  case — one  that  is  likely  to 
>ccur  a  little  sooner,  perhaps.  Suppose  Brig- 
.iam  Youug  should  come  from  the  State  of 
Utah,  when  it  is  a  State,  into  Kansas,  or  any 
other  Territory,  and  bring  with  him  his  forty 
wives,  and  the  Territory  ha3  a  law  that  a  man 
shall  have  but  one  wife.  Brigham  says,  u  These 
‘  are  my  property;  yea,  more  than  my  prop- 
1  erty ;  yea,  they  are  forty  ribs  taken  out  of  my 
‘  body  while  I  slept ;  1  must  bring  them  in 
1  here,  or  the  State  of  Utah  will  not  be  on  an 
(  equal  footing  with  the  other  States  of  this 

•  Union.” 


Away  with  such  logic.  There  is  no  guaranty 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  foi 
such  a  position  as  that.  Our  safety,  Mr.  Pres 
ident  consists  in  keeping  close  to  the  Constitu 
tion.  Whatever  we  claim,  let  us  find  the  direct 
warrant  for  it  there,  or  the  necessary  implica¬ 
tion  to  carry  out  some  other  power  that  is  man 
ifestly  granted.  The  moment  we  go  astray 
from  this,  we  are  in  the  fog;  we  are  in  dispute; 
we  endanger  the  harmony  of  our  action,  and 
it  is  done  in  this  instance.  In  this  great  de¬ 
parture  from  the  early  principles  of  this  Gov¬ 
ernment,  you  have  involved  portions  of  the 
nation  in  almost  irretrievable  hostility  to  each 
other.  Let  us  go  back  to  the  Constitution,  and 
follow  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  will  notice  one  other  posi¬ 
tion.  Waiving  all  constitutional  law  on  this 
subject  —  for  we  are  not  compelled  to  do  all 
that  we  have  a  constitutional  right  to  do — I 
will  suppose,  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument, 
that  you  have  authority  to  take  your  slaves  into 
a  Territory,  and  hold  them  there  ;  still,  is  it  ex¬ 
pedient,  is  it  just  and  proper  to  do  it?  This 
brings  up  a  question  which  has  been  incident¬ 
ally  debated  during  this  session  several  times. 
Originally,  it  now  stands  confessed  here ;  the 
framers  of  our  institutions,  the  fathers  of  the 
Republic,  all,  I  believe,  without  a  dissenting 
voice,  (if  there  were  any,  I  do  not  know  it,)  held 
that  slaveholding  was  against  common  right, 
was  against  natural  right,  was  wrong  in  itself, 
and  therefore  should  not  be  cherished  or  en¬ 
couraged. 

Now,  Senators  say  here,  that  the  slavehold¬ 
ing  States  have  reconsidered  this  subject  with 
great  deliberation,  and  they  have  found  that 
this  old  view  was  wrong  ;  that  slavery  is  a  nor¬ 
mal  condition  ;  that  it  is  a  blessing  to  society; 
that  it  is  the  best  state  and  condition  that  a 
man  can  be  in,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  ex¬ 
tended.  That  is  the  only  issue  which  1  wish 
to  draw  in  upon  this  subject  with  any  party, 
because  I  know  that  your  determination  now  to 
extend  slavery  into  the  Territories  arises  from 
this  new  philosophy  of  yours.  If  you  are  right 
upon  that,  I  will  go  with  you.  If  you  are  right, 
let  us  extend  slavery  to  the  four  winds  of 
heaven  ;  let  us  employ  missionaries  to  preach 
the  glories  of  slavery,  and  induce  the  whole 
world  to  divide  itself,  and  one  half  become 
slaveholders,  and  the  other  half  slaves. 

Sir,  I  am  glad  to  see  this  great  question 
placed  at  last  upon  a  solid  foundation  ;  for 
every  man  knows  that  no  political  principle 
can  be  based  permanently  on  anything  short  of 
eternal  justice  and  right.  Now,  I  do  not  care  for 
what  the  Senator  from  Georgia  and  others  have 
told  U3,  that  slaveholding  was  the  basis  upon 
which  society  had  been  founded  for  thirty  cen¬ 
turies.  We,  at  least,  have  discovered  that  it  is 
a  sandy  foundation.  It  is  fast  washing  away  ; 
and  in  exact  proportion  to  the  advance  of  man 
kind  in  civilisation  and  in  knowledge,  on  all 
hands  this  old  principle  is  deemed  barbarous. 


12 


<4nd  is  wearing  away.  Upon  that  issue,  I  will 
meet  you  ;  it  is  a  fair  one.  If  it  is  right,  ex¬ 
tend  it  5  if  it  is  wrong,  let  it  die  the  death,  as 
all  error  and  falsehood  must  die.  I  hardly 
know  how  to  meet  this  issue  in  argument;  for 
I  have  been  ki  the  habit  of  believing,  with  the 
lathers  of  the  Constitution,  that  liberty  is  the 
gift  of  God  to.  every  human  being.  With  them, 
I  have  supposed  it  is  self-evident,  and  incapa¬ 
ble  of  illustration  by  argument.  I  would  appeal 
from  all  your  casuistry  to  the  promptings  of  the 
human  heart.  Who  within  the  sound  of  my 
voice  would  not  say,  with  the  immortal  Henry, 
u  Give  me  liberty,  or  give  me  death  ?  ”  If  there 
be  any,  let  him  speak.  Who  had  not  rather 
infinitely  follow  a  friend  or  relation  to  the  grave, 
than  into  the  shambles  of  eternal  slavery  ?  Not 
a  man.  Human  nature  revolts  at  it. 

I  know  it  is  said  that  the  African  is  an  infe¬ 
rior  race,  incapable  of  defending  his  own  rights. 
My  ethics  teach  me,  if  it  be  so,  that  this  fact, 
so  far  from  giving  me  a  right  to  enslave  him, 
requires  that  I  shall  be  more  scrupulous  of 
his  rights  ;  but  I  know  that,  whether  he  be 
equal  to  me  or  not,  he  is  still  a  human  being; 
negroes  are  still  men.  Senators  will  bear  me 
wituess  that  there  are  thousands  now  in  bond¬ 
age  who  are  much  more  white  than  black — 
yea,  tens  of  thousands  of  such ;  but,  whether 
white  or  black,  I  say  again,  they  are  still  hu¬ 
man  ;  they  are  animated  by  the  same  hopes, 
they  are  afflicted  with  the  same  sorrows,  they 
are  actuated  by  the  same  motives,  that  we  are. 
Like  us,  they  may  be  deprived  of  every  right ; 
they  may  be  treated  like  brutes ;  their  souls 
may  be  ignored  ;  you  may  whip,  scourge,  and 
trample  them  in  the  dust ;  but  they  will  rise 
from  your  utmost  degradation,  and  stand  forth 
in  the  image  of  God,  the  conscious  candidates 
of  immortal  life.  This  gives  them  a  full  assur¬ 
ance  of  their  manhood,  and  stands  as  an  eter¬ 
nal  prophecy  that  they  are  not  always  to  be 
slaves.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  human  nature. 
It  is  implanted  in  every  human  soul,  by  the 
finger  of  God.  You  cannot  eradicate  it ;  and 
yet,  while  it  remains,  your  institution  cannot 
be  secure. 

There  are  other  reasons  enough  to  show  that 
it  is  not  the  normal  condition  of  man.  Whence 
this  tremulous  perturbation  of  the  whole  South 
on  this  subject?  Why  this  fear  that  their  in¬ 
stitution  will  be  overturned  by  every  breath  ? 
Why  is  it  that  you  withhold  from  these  men 
and  women  the  knowledge  of  reading  and  wri¬ 
ting  ?  What  mean  your  nightly  patrols,  that  I 
see  your  laws  provide  for?  What  means  this 
persecution  of  Northern  men  who  go  among 
you  ?  What  is  the  fear  you  have  of  this  Helper 
book,  that  we  have  heard  so  much  of?  What 
means  this  robbery  of  the  mails  and  censor¬ 
ship  of  the  press  through  all  the  South  ?  If 
slavery  is  the  normal  condition,  do  you  fear 
that  the  handiwork  of  God  will  be  overturned 
by  these  frivolous  means  ?  No,  sir ;  never.  It 


falsifies  the  pretence  that  it  is  a  normal  condi¬ 
tion  of  mankind.  Society  in  the  North  needs 
no  sucl*  artificial  props  as  these  to  sustain  it. 
You  may  co-me  up  there;  you  may  attack  our 
institutions  ;  we  will  invite  you,  wherever  you 
please  to  come,  to  preach  the  glories  of  slavery 
as  the  normal  condition  of  man,  and  our  insti¬ 
tutions  will  stand  firmer  than  ever  by  the  con¬ 
flict.  We  fear  no  such  thing.  Why?  Because, 
although  the  Senator  from  Virginia  [Mr. 
Hunter]  said  that  slavery  was  the  normal  con¬ 
dition,  and,  if  I  understood  him,  that  freedom 
wa3  an  experiment  yet,  and  likely  to  come  out 
second  best,  nevertheless  everything  around 
you  shows  the  security  of  the  North.  The 
perfect  contentedness  of  the  North  shows 
which  is  the  normal  and  which  the  other  con¬ 
dition.  Look  to  the  great  Northwest,  to  which 
I  belong.  There  is  a  white  population  to-day, 
north vvest  of  the  river  Ohio,  as  great  as  that  of 
all  your  slave  States,  so  secure,  so  impassive, 
so  conscious  of  their  own  strength,  that  they 
are  an  empire  in  themselves.  1  am  here  day 
after  day,  and  my  constituents  ask  nothing  of 
me  but  to  be  let  alone.  Here  we  hear  thi3 
clamor  from  the  South  about  Southern  rights, 
day  after  day,  year  after  year,  disturbing  ele¬ 
ments  in  our  political  progress  constantly;  and 
yet  you  hear  nothing  from  the  security  of  free¬ 
dom  and  free  labor  in  those  regions.  All  this 
goes  to  show  that  slavery  is  not  the  normal 
condition  of  man  —  that  it  is  an  institution 
which  has  survived  the  exigencies  of  the  times 
which  permitted  it  to  be  established,  and  now 
lives  on  the  bare  sufferance  of  mankind. 

J  have  nothing  to  say  of  slavery  in  the  States. 
I  do  not  wish  to  say,  and  would  not  say,  a  word 
about  it,  because  I  am  candid  enough  to  con¬ 
fess  that  I  do  not  know  what  you  can  do  with 
it  there.  I  want  no  finger  with  it  in  your  own 
States.  I  leave  it  to  yourselves.  It  is  bad 
enough,  to  be  sure,  that  four  millions  of  unpaid 
labor  now  is  operating  there,  in  competition 
with  the  free  labor  of  the  North;  but  I  have 
nothing  to  say  of  that.  Within  your  own 
boundaries,  conduct  it  in  your  own  way  ;  but  it 
is  wrong.  Your  new  philosophy  can  net  stand 
the  scrutiny  of  the  present  age.  It  is  a  de¬ 
parture  from  the  views  and  principles  of  your 
fathers ;  yea,  it  is  founded  in  the  selfishness 
and  cupidity  of  man,  and  not  in  the  justice  of 
God.  There  is  the  difficulty  with  your  instituiion. 
There  is  what  makes  you  fear  that  it  may,  sooner 
or  later,  be  overturned  ;  but,  sir,  I  shall  do  noth¬ 
ing  to  overturn  it.  If  I  could  do  it  with  the 
wave  of  my  hand  in  your  States,  I  should  not 
know  how  to  do  it,  or  what  you  should  do.  All 
I  say  is,  that,  in  the  vast  Territories  of  this 
nation,  I  will  allow  no  such  curse  to  have  a 
foothold.  If  I  am  right,  and  slavery  stands 
branded  and  condemned  by  the  God  of  nature, 
then,  for  Heaven’s  sake,  go  with  me  to  limit  it, 
and  not  propagate  this  curse.  I  am  candid 
enough  to  admit  that  you  gentlemen  on  the 


13 


other  side,  if  you  ever  become  convinced,  as  I 
doubt  not  you  will,  that  this  institution  does 
not  stand  by  the  rights  of  nature  nor  by  the 
will  of  God,  you  yourselves  will  be  willing  to 
put  a  limit  to  it.  You  have  only  departed  be¬ 
cause  your  philosophy  has  led  you  away.  Sir, 
I  leave  you  with  the  argument. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  in  conclusion,  I 
would  ask  Senators  what  they  find  in  the  Re¬ 
publican  party  that  is  so  repulsive  to  them  that 
they  must  lay  hold  of  the  pillars  of  this  Union, 
and  demolish  and  destroy  the  noblest  Govern¬ 
ment  that  has  ever  existed  among  men  ?  For 
what?  Not  certainly  for  any  evil  we  have 
done  ;  for,  as  I  said  to  start  with,  you  are  more 
prosperous  now  than  you  ever  w'ere  before. 
What  are  our  principles?  Our  principles  are 
only  these :  we  hold  that  you  shall  limit  slavery. 
Believing  it  wrong,  believing  it  inconsistent 
with  the  best  interests  of  the  people,  we  demand 
that  it  shall  be  limited ;  and  this  limitation  is 
not  hard  upon  you,  because  you  have  land 
enough  for  a  population  as  large  as  Europe, 
and  century  after  century  must  roll  away  beTore 
you  can  occupy  what  you  now  have.  The  next 
thing  which  we  hold,  and  which  I  have  not 
time  to  discuss,  is  the  great  principle  of  the 
homestead  bill — a  measure  that  will  be  up,  I 
trust,  this  session,  and  which  I  shall  ask  to 
press  through,  as  the  greatest  measure  I  know 
of  to  mould  in  the  right  direction  the  Territo¬ 
ries  belonging  to  this  nation ;  to  build  up  a 
free  yeomanry  capable  of  maintaining  a«p  inde¬ 
pendent  republican  Government  forever.  We 
demand,  also,  that  there  shall  be  a  protection 
to  our  own  labor  against  the  pauper  labor  of 
Europe.  We  have  always  contended  for  it, 
but  you  have  always  stricken  it  down. 

These  are  the  measures,  and  these  are  the 
only  measures,  I  know  of  that  the  great  Repub¬ 
lican  party  now  stand  forth  as  the  advocates 
of.  Is  there  anything  repulsive  or  wrong  about 
them  ?  You  may  not  agree  to  them  ;  you  may 
differ  as  to  our  views  ;  but  is  there  anything  in 
them  that  should  make  traitors  of  us,  that 
should  lead  a  man  to  pull  down  the  pillars  of 
his  Government,  and  bury  it  up,  in  case  we 
succeed?  Sir,  these  principles  for  which  we 
contend  are  as  old  as  the  Government  itself. 
They  stand  upon  the  very  foundation  of  those 
who  framed  your  Constitution.  They  are 
rational  and  right;  they  are  the  concessions 
that  ought  to  be  made  to  Northern  labor 
against  you,  who  have  monopolized  four  mil 
lions  of  compulsory  labor  and  uncompensatbd 
labor,  in  competition  with  us. 

There  is  one  thing  more  that  I  will  say  be¬ 
fore  I  sit  down ;  but  what  I  am  now  about  to 
propose  is  not  part  and  parcel  of  the  Republi¬ 
can  platform,  that  I  know  of.  There  is  in  these 
United  States  a  race  of  men  who  are  poor,  weak, 
uniufluential,  incapable  of  taking  care  of  them¬ 
selves.  I  mean  the  free  negroes,  who  are  de¬ 


spised  by  all,  repudiated  by  all ;  outcasts  upon 
the  face  of  the  earth,  without  any  fault  of  theirs 
that  I  know  of ;  but  they  are  the  victims  of  a 
deep-rooted  prejudice,  and  I  do  not  stand  here 
to  argue  whether  that  prejudice  be  right  or 
wrong.  I  know  such  to  be  the  fact.  It  is  there 
immovable.  It  is  perfectly  impossible  that 
these  two  races  can  inhabit  the  same  place,  and 
be  prosperous  and  happy.  I  see  that  this 
species  of  population  are  just  as  abhorrent  to 
the  Southern  States,  and  perhaps  more  so,  than 
to  the  North  ;  many  of  those  States  are  now,  as 
I  think,  passing  most  unjust  laws  to  drive  these 
men  off  or  to  subject  them  to  slavery;  they  are 
flocking  into  the  free  States,  and  we  have  ob¬ 
jections  to  them.  Now,  the  proposition  is,  that 
this  great  Government  owes  it  to  justice,  owes 
it  to  those  individuals,  owes  it  to  itself  and  to 
the  free  white  population  of  the  nation,  to  pro¬ 
vide  a  means  whereby  this  class  of  unfortunate 
men  may  emigrate  to  some  congenial  clime, 
whero  they  may  be  maintained,  to  the  mutual 
benefit  of  all,  both  white  and  black.  This  will 
insure  a  separation  of  the  races.  Let  them  go 
into  the  tropics.  There,  I  understand,  are  vast 
tracts  of  the  most  fertile  and  inviting  land,  in  a 
climate  perfectly  congenial  to  that  class  of  men, 
whero  the  negro  will  be  predominant;  where 
his  nature  seems  to  be  improved,  and  all  his 
faculties,  both  mental  and  physical,  are  fully 
developed,  and  where  the  white  man  degener¬ 
ates  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  black  man 
prospers.  Let  them  go  there  ;  let  them  be  sepa¬ 
rated  ;  it  is  easy  to  do  it.  I  understand  that 
negotiations  may  easily  be  effected  with  many 
of  the  Central  American  States,  by  which  they 
will  take  these  people,  and  confer  upon  them 
homesteads,  confer  upon  them  great  privileges, 
if  they  will  settle  there.  They  are  so  easy  of 
access  that,  a  nucleus  being  formed,  they  will 
go  of  themselves  and  relieve  us  of  the  burden. 
They  will  be  so  far  removed  from  us  that  they 
caunot  form  a  disturbing  element  in  our  politi¬ 
cal  economy.  The  far-reaching  sagacity  of 
Thomas  Jefferson  and  others  suggested  this 
plan.  Nobody  that  I  know  of  has  found  a 
better.  I  understand,  too,  that  in  these  regions, 
to  which  I  would  let  them  go,  there  is  no  pre¬ 
judice  against  them.  All  colors  seem  there  to 
live  in  common,  and  they  would  be  glad  that 
these  men  should  go  among  them. 

I  say  that  I  hope  this  great  principle  will  be 
engrafted  into  our  platform  as  a  fundamental 
article  of  our  faith,  for  I  hold  that  the  Govern¬ 
ment  that  fails  to  defend  and  secure  any  such 
dependent  class  of  freemen  in  the  possession  of 
life,  liberty,  and  happiness,  is,  to  that  extent,  a 
tyranny  and  despotism.  I  hope,  after  that  is 
done,  to  hear  no  more  about  negro  equality  or 
anything  of  that  kind.  Sir,  we  shall  be  as  glad 
to  rid  ourselves  of  these  people,  if  we  can  do  it 
consistently  with  justice,  as  anybody  else  can. 
We  will  not,  however,  perpetrate  injustice 
against  them.  We  will  not  drive  them  out, 


14 


but  we  will  use  every  inducement  to  persuade 
these  unfortunate  men  to  find  a  home  there,  so 
as  tc  separate  the  races,  and  all  will  go  better 
than  it  can  under  any  other  system  that  we  can 
devise.  I  say  again,  I  hope  that  the  demands 
of  justice  and  good  policy  will  be  complied 


with ;  and  by  the  consent  of  all,  this  will  be  done , 
and  if  it  is  not  done  with  the  assent  of  all,  I  dc 
hope  it  will  be  part  and  parcel  of  the  great  Re¬ 
publican  platform  ;  for  I  thiuk  it  consists  with 
right,  with  justice,  and  with  a  proper  regard 
for  the  welfare  of  these  unfortunate  men. 


